ICO Decisions On Four PATI Requests
Information Commissioner Gitanjali Gutierrez issued her final four decisions concerning the Customs Department, the Bermuda Police Service, and two decisions related to the Ministry of Health Headquarters.
- Decision 06/2025, Customs Department [PDF]
- Decision 07/2025, Bermuda Police Service [PDF]
- Decision 08/2025, Ministry of Health Headquarters [PDF]
- Decision 09/2025, Ministry of Health Headquarters [PDF]
A spokesperson said, “On 17 February and 21 February 2025, Information Commissioner Gitanjali Gutierrez issued her final four decisions: Decision 06/2025, Customs Department, Decision 07/2025, Bermuda Police Service, Decision 08/2025, Ministry of Health Headquarters and Decision 09/2025, Ministry of Health Headquarters.
“In Decision 06/2025, the Applicant made a PATI request for customs duty paid by specific business importers for specific imported vehicles. The Information Commissioner has found that the Department was justified, in part, in withholding records as their disclosure would have had an adverse effect on commercial interests, while the Department was not justified in asserting that disclosure would have destroyed or diminished the information’s commercial value. One third party argued that disclosure of the customs duty paid would adversely affect its commercial interests. The third party also argued that the information was given to the Department in confidence and its disclosure would prevent the Department from receiving similar information in the future, which was needed to fulfil the Department’s functions. The Information Commissioner has found that the third party did not justify application of those exemptions. Lastly, the Information Commissioner has found that parts of the records contained exempt personal information that would not have been in the public interest to disclose. The Information Commissioner has ordered the Department to disclose six records, with exempt and certain personal information removed.
Decision 06/2025 Summary:
“The Information Commissioner further observed that, during her review, an amendment to the Customs Department Act 1952 took effect; this was after the Department had made its PATI request decision but prior to the Commissioner’s decision. The Information Commissioner noted that, if the records were requested today, the amendments would be considered. But the amendments did not exist at the time of the Department’s handling of this PATI request. In this instance, the Information Commissioner had discretion to consider subsequent developments but was not required to do so. For Decision 06/2025, the Information Commissioner exercised her authority to order disclosure of the requested records without applying the subsequent 2024 amendments.
“In Decision 07/2025, the Applicant made a PATI request for records related to a search warrant executed against two police officers in December 2020. The request sought correspondence between specific police officers related to the offences cited in the search warrant, body camera footage, and records related to misconduct investigations. During the Information Commissioner’s review, the Applicant withdrew their challenge on some items of the PATI request. The ICO and the BPS also located more records responsive to the request, which had not been processed by the BPS. The Information Commissioner has ordered that, because a reasonable search for records responsive to some parts of the request had not been conducted, the BPS must conduct further searches and issue a new decision on the additional records located during the review, as well as any new records located following the BPS’s search.
Decision 07/2025 Summary:
“In Decision 07/2025, the Information Commissioner has also found that the PATI Act did not apply to one record obtained by the Department of Public Prosecutions in the course of carrying out their functions, and that the BPS had properly withheld certain records, including draft copies of the search warrant, as their disclosure would have prejudiced the BPS’s deliberations, and certain investigation records, as their disclosure would prejudice the effectiveness of the specific procedures and methods used to conduct the relevant investigations. Further, the Information Commissioner has found that certain records contained exempt personal information that would not have been in the public interest to disclose. The BPS has been ordered to disclose three records, with certain personal information removed.
“In Decision 08/2025 and Decision 09/2025, the Applicant made two PATI requests to the Ministry of Health Headquarters for records related to the COVID-19 pandemic. As background, the Applicant was seeking to understand how persons adversely affected by the COVID-19 vaccines could claim damages. The Applicant had previously had his claim rejected under the United Kingdom’s payment scheme, as it only covered those having a vaccine administered in the UK or the Isle of Man. During the Information Commissioner’s review, the Ministry Headquarters confirmed that there was no scheme in place for Bermuda and that a member of the public wishing to claim damages from the Government of Bermuda for an adverse event caused by a vaccine would need to pursue a civil action against the Government.
Decision 08/2025 Summary:
“In Decision 08/2025, the Applicant sought records related to adverse events following immunisation [known as AEFIs] caused by the COVID-19 vaccines, including the memorandum of understanding [MOU] between the United Kingdom and the Government of Bermuda for deploying the vaccines. The Information Commissioner has found that the Ministry Headquarters did not justify withholding copies of the MOU as their disclosure would not have had an adverse effect on commercial interests nor prejudiced public authority deliberations. One third party argued that disclosing the MOU— specifically, certain appendices related to the companies supplying the vaccines—would adversely affect its commercial interests or destroy or diminish the information’s commercial value. The Information Commissioner has found that the third party did not justify application of those exemptions, as most of the information was already available in the public domain. Finally, the Information Commissioner has found that the records contained exempt personal information but that the public interest required disclosure of the names and positions of the Governor, the Minister of Health, the Cabinet Secretary and the Chief Medical Officer where they appeared in the records.
“The Information Commissioner has ordered the Ministry Headquarters to disclose two records with personal information related to UK personnel and signatures redacted. The Information Commissioner has also ordered the Ministry Headquarters to conduct further searches for parts of the request, where the Information Commissioner was not satisfied that a reasonable search had been conducted for records or that the information was in the public domain already as the Ministry Headquarters had asserted.
Decision 09/2025 Summary:
“In Decision 09/2025, the Applicant sought records related to them as well as records relied on by the Government to justify measures taken during the COVID-19 pandemic [such as quarantines and lockdowns]. Though the Ministry Headquarters disclosed several responsive records to the Applicant, the Applicant challenged the reasonableness of its search. The Information Commissioner has found that the Ministry Headquarters remedied its response for two items by conducting a reasonable search during her review, but that the Ministry Headquarters had not done so for the third item of the PATI request. The Information Commissioner has ordered the Ministry Headquarters to conduct a reasonable search for the one outstanding item and to issue a new decision on that item as well as on the additional records located during her review.
“During Information Commissioner Gutierrez’s 10-year appointment, a total of 226 reviews have been closed by formal decisions. Each decision is posted on the ICO’s website, ico.bm/decisions/.”
I am not fond of the overused news media word “bombshell,” but 08/2025 & 09/2025 – BOOM! BOOM! Wow. It’s too bad these were not released a week before the election. The people who made the poor decisions are still in office. Those two decisions might have changed them being re-elected.
“The Information Commissioner has found that the Ministry Headquarters did not comply with section 12(2)(b) of the PATI Act in responding completely and accurately to the PATI request”
It should be concerning to everyone that the Ministry of Health did not respond “completely and accurately” to the PATI request.
It is very disconcerting that the Decisions show that the Ministry of Health handled the applicant’s issue poorly. After being told by the chief medical officer that the UK covered vaccine damages, the UK said Bermuda was not covered; after three years, no one informed the applicant that the government could be sued and Pfizer could be sued. Seriously? The Government had insurance coverage for employees but not for the public! Then, many others had severe medical issues from the vaccine, and that information was never publicly released. Undoubtedly, none of those injured parties were told that the Government and Pfizer were liable for damages.
I wonder what the odds are of the Ministry fully complying with the Decisions. Well, the election is over, so who knows.